01.05 - The Bible as Literature

(5) The Bible as Literature Closely connected with the Higher Criticism is the present-day treatment of the Bible as literature. The Bible is not a book, but a library of sixty-six books, written by forty or more authors, who wrote at different times and places, and under very different conditions. The Old Testament is called Hebrew literature, or the national literature of the Jewish people. It is not meant that it comprises the whole of their literature, but that it is national in the sense that it reflects their national life, history and religion, and follows a given course of development. The primal strata of all national literature, we are told, are traditional and legendary; the earliest forms are poetical and narrative, in which imagination and creative art blend with traditions and facts semihistorical. With the development of family and national life and history are associated moral and social relations, institutions, and usages the historical.

Then follows upon this the highest form of literature, called the ethical and didactic. The Bible, in so far as it is a national literature, is said to follow this order of development. The earliest records are poetical and traditional but set in a framework of fact and history; then we have the historical and prophetical, and lastly the didactic and philosophical writings. In accepting this rough characterisation of the Old Testament Scriptures as national literature, we claim to interpret these terms and expressions. If we admit the primal strata to be traditional and legendary, we do not mean that those early records in the book of Genesis have no foundation in fact; but that they are the product of fact and reflection.

Tradition is not history proper, but it has its roots in actual fact; it is sacred when it concerns such sacred subjects as Creation, Temptation and the Fall; and it has a character and value peculiarly its own. Those early Hebrew traditions, forming the primal strata of Hebrew literature, must be regarded as having their source in a direct revelation from God to the first man; their character and teachings concerning God, His relation to the world and man, being greatly superior to that of any other nation or people. Again, when it is said the early narratives arc poetical rather than historical, we arc not to conclude that they are fictitious and untrue. Poetry is not truth in the same sense as history and philosophy.

Poetry is the work of imagination and creation; a form of literature in which imagination and emotion help description; it idealises the fact, it puts the fact into epic stories, lyrical and dramatic presentations. So that if the early narratives of Hebrew literature are poetical they have their facts; the facts are set in a framework of history; the epic incidents are actual, only presented in poetic form. But some critics tell us that Hebrew literature is in most respects unlike any other national literature.

They question whether, strictly speaking, there is either epic, drama, or philosophy, in the Scriptures; while no other national literature has anything approaching Hebrew prophecy. No other literature has so many peoples, languages, and voices contributing to its wisdom; none supplies so many points of view and of insight into men and things, presents its message in so many ways and forms, nor supplies just such unity with diversity as the Scriptures do. So that while the Scriptures are a national literature, and take on certain literary forms and characteristics, they are unique, and cannot be treated in precisely the same way as any other literature. When we are asked to “ treat the Bible as any other book,” it must be understood to mean any other book of its kind. The late Professor Rooke, regarded this limitation as most important; because all books are not of the same kind, are not of equal value, and are not treated by us in just the same way. Students of all subjects have their authorities whom they accept, quote, and trust, and they treat them with the confidence and respect they deserve. When we inquire respecting the Bible into what class of literature we shall place it, and what sort of book we shall compare with it, we find that, regarded as literature, as a book of religion and morality, as a directory of life and conduct, as an authority in matters of faith and practice, it stands alone. There is none other that can be compared with it. If the popular demand to “treat the Bible as we would treat any other book,” means that we must adopt a similar course in tracing its teaching and discovering its meaning as we would adopt in studying any other subject; and that we accord to it, in respect of its teaching, the same respect, deference, and authority, we pay to any other acknowledged standard better informed than we are; so be it. But if the cry means that we should regard the Bible as literature, look upon it as the work of fallible erring men, and as characterised by the same mistakes and errors, the same crimes and horrors, as any other literature, and as of no higher authority and deserving of no greater confidence than any other sacred literature then we hold that this is to prejudge its claims as the inspired record of divine revelation: that is, not to accept and judge it as we would any other acknowledged authority, for what it is, and what it claims to be. But there is another feature in the modern study of the Bible as literature which may serve as a check to the Higher Criticism in the disintegration of Scripture by historical and literary analysis. The tendency of the Higher Criticism is to get behind the Scripture for the purpose of ascertaining what it is, and how it came to have its present place and form.

Literary criticism proposes to take the Scripture as it is, to examine its literary character, form, and structure, to ascertain what it really is as literature. A foremost leader in this “ Literary Study of the Bible,” is Professor R. G. Moulton, of the University of Chicago. In the preface to his work, he says, “ Historic analysis, investigating dates, sometimes finds itself obliged to discriminate between different parts of the same literary composition, and to assign to them different periods; having accomplished this upon sound evidence, it then often proceeds, no longer upon evidence, but by tacit assumption, by unconscious insinuations rather than by distinct statements, to treat the earlier parts of such a composition as genuine or original, while the portions of later date are made interpolations, or accretions in fact, are alluded to as something * illegitimate. “ This he describes further on, as “ un-scientific; it is the intrusion of the modern conception of a fixed book and an individual author into a totally different age.” Instead of regarding different styles and forms of composition as the work of different authors and of different dates, literary criticism would treat them as genuine portions of the same writing, differing only in literary form and structure. So in regard to the division of chapters, paragraphs, and verses of Scripture: “ Historic analysis busies itself almost exclusively with the subject matter of the composition to the neglect of the literary form. A powerful search-light is thrown upon minute historical allusions, while the broad indications of literary unity are passed by.” A change of speaker, or of literary tone and expression, is often taken as evidence of a new composition, the work of another hand and of another date, until there “yawns a whole century” between the verses of a single chapter, whereas what really “yawns “ is a difference of literary style and expression. This difference of view as to literary form and structure considered in the light of the authorship and unity of the several books of Scripture we regard as important, and destined to exert a modifying influence on the conclusions and methods of the Higher Criticism in this particular. While the latter seeks for unity of style and structure and expression as evidence of the unity of authorship, the other seeks for unity of idea, thought, and purpose, with diversity of style, structure, and expression. The one takes verses and clauses and judges them separately, the other takes the writing as it is and judges it as a whole. By this method literary criticism claims to find the higher and truer unity of the Scripture, which may be simple unit) the unity of idea; or the unit} of transition in which one idea passes into another; or the unity of contrast and antithesis when a poem or discourse begins with one topic and ends with an entirely different one; or, the unity of aggregation in which particular sayings or compositions of the same kind are gathered together and united in a whole; or, the unit} of external circumstance which is to be found in the occasion and use of the Psalm or discourse rather than in the composition. 1 As to what will be the ultimate issue of the “ Literary Study of the Bible “ in this particular we affect not to say, but we think we can see in it a helpful corrective to the disintegration of Scripture by the process of historical and literary analysis.